"Ongoing insecurity"...?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Ne... QUOTE

Ongoing insecurity hampering humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan 鈥?UN
WFP convoy 17 December 2007 鈥?Having to operate under tighter security restrictions has curtailed the efforts of United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in delivering vital humanitarian aid to thousands of Afghans in preparation for winter, the world body鈥檚 mission in the country said today." UNQUOTE

How about this for a radical thought...?

MAYBE ... IF Politicians and aid-workers were to -
i) LISTEN to the security person on the ground...
ii) OBEY the advice of the security person on the ground without changing the goal posts AFTER an agreement has been made
iii) Indeed, maybe they should stay well away from the theatre of war until the Military and security forces have decided and stated a cease fire has been agreed upon to allow aid to go in?

Maybe they'd feel more secure when the guns are put down..

No. If we do not provide aid to Afghanistan, we will not have any chance of winning. The philosophy of the British Army in such situations is a hearts and minds approach. It will not work on all, but if it works on enough, Afghanistan will be able to look after itself sooner and not later. And in order to do that, aid needs to be given.

We are not there to occupy Afghanistan, we are there to make it better, so that is what we need to do, while fighting.

I concur wholeheartedly with the community choice for Best Answer and thank one and all Report It

Humanitarian aid must be curtailed due to security reasons because people will be deprived of aid.

Thank you for the warm fuzzy feeling your compassionate post has inspired.

Yes, it makes much more sense to stop sending aid until after the war has ended and no more aid is needed.